Delhi High Court hears multiple PILs on Jantar Mantar protests, dismisses NIA probe challenge

The Delhi High Court on Friday (July 24, 2026) took up a series of public interest litigations (PILs) arising out of the ongoing student protests at Jantar Mantar over the alleged NEET paper leak and examination irregularities, hearing pleas ranging from demands for an NIA probe into the July 20 ‘Chalo Sansad’ march to allegations of excessive police surveillance of protesters.

However, Supreme Court Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia took a different approach in both sets of petitions. While she declined to entertain pleas seeking a National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe into the July 20 protest, she deferred consideration of a separate challenge to the alleged video footage and surveillance of the protesters after hearing extensive submissions from both sides.

The court refused to entertain a PIL seeking an investigation by the NIA or any other specialized agency into the July 20 protest march organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), saying it was for the central government, not the court, to decide whether the case should be referred to the NIA.

The petition, filed by former Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha Vice President Satish Kumar Aggarwal, alleged that the protest led to violence, vandalism and damage to public property and sought directions to register an FIR against those allegedly responsible.

During the hearing, the Bench observed, “There has to be an FIR, then the police officer hands it over to the state government and the state sends it to the Centre. If the Center thinks fit, it can hand over the investigation of the FIR to the NIA. You are asking us to form an opinion that this is a fit case. That job has been entrusted to the Central Government.”

When the petitioner’s counsel argued that the gravity of the alleged offenses warranted an investigation by the NIA or the CBI, the court replied that handing over the investigation to the CBI could be considered only after examining the progress of the existing investigation.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that people’s fundamental rights are being affected as roads are blocked and metro stations are closed for the last three days. He submitted photos and videos to back up his claim.

But the Bench made it clear that he would not go into all those things. “We are only in legal matters. This is a fact that requires the investigation to be conducted under the guidance and supervision of the competent authority. We cannot reflect on anything just by going through the videos and photos.”

The court noted that the alleged incidents were already known to the authorities who were expected to act in accordance with the law.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma urged the court to at least seek a status report from the authorities on the incidents. But the court said, “We are not curtailing your powers, Mr. Sharma, if you think it is appropriate for you to refer the matter to the NIA, you can do it. There are judgments. Every authority is at your disposal, deal with it as effectively as you should. Follow the Supreme Court judgments, you have a mandate.”

As Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said: “I’m not saying that the petitioners who came yesterday (against the excessive use of police force on protesters) were right. I’m not saying that those petitioners are right. They have counterclaims.”

“Consider it (representation). We request them to approach you,” the Bench said.

Following the court’s comments, Mr. Mehta suggested that the petitioner consider withdrawing the plea. The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The court similarly disposed of another petition filed by the Save India Foundation and granted the right to approach the relevant authorities with its complaints regarding the alleged destruction of public property and attacks on police personnel.

The court recalled that the Supreme Court had already laid down principles governing cases of mob violence and destruction of public property.

Police surveillance of protesters

In a separate PIL, the Bench heard arguments on the legality of continuous police filming and alleged facial recognition-based surveillance of protesters gathered at Jantar Mantar.

Senior advocate Nandita Rao, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the right to privacy recognized by the Supreme Court extends to citizens participating in public protests. While it recognized that the right could be limited, it argued that any limitation must meet the constitutional tests of legality and legitimate state purpose.

Ms Rao said the petition was filed before the July 20 police action and specifically challenged the alleged surveillance of young protesters, including female students aged 16 to 20.

“Uniform police officers are walking around without uniform filming these kids up close,” Rao said. Citing media reports, she claimed that live facial recognition technology had been deployed at the protest site.

Mr. Mehta, appearing for the Centre, opposed the plea, arguing that videotaping of protests was an “accepted” measure followed at all public demonstrations and not limited to the current agitation.

“When you hold a protest in an open space, the claim to privacy is ironic,” argued Mr. Mehta, adding that hundreds of reels and videos were shot by the protesters themselves at the site.

Mr. Mehta further argued that privacy is a fundamental right, but not in a public place where there is a “legitimate state interest”. He said, “Suppose there are some unauthorized incidents. Suppose some foreigners come and do something… the government must have some mechanism.”

But Ms. Rao said there was a difference between an individual’s recording of events and the state video showing them. “Can a citizen arrest someone based on a video. Can a citizen influence a college not to take admission. You (Centre) are at a much higher level than us,” she said.

The court then submitted the matter for Monday’s hearing.

Published – 25 Jul 2026 0:30 AM IST